First off, The Society of King Charles the Martyr was founded 1894 as ‘a Church Defence Union under the banner of the Martyr-King.’ The SKCM is actually the oldest society that is associated with Charles Stuart. As the title of this society states, they view Charles as a martyr, they see him as a savior of the Christian faith too. One of the paintings that they have on their home-page is Charles, he is holding a crown of thorns, he looks very Christ-like in this painting. SKCM honor Charles I as a saint because he “was the last saint to be canonised by the Church of England,” and he died for the church. Dr. Mandell Creighton said that if Charles would have been willing to give up episcopacy (government of a church by bishops), and had wanted to give up the Church he could have saved his throne and life. I personally don’t really know if i agree with that statement. I think he could have maybe, maybe as in a very small percentage, saved his life, but save his throne, I don’t think so. Because Charles was an absolutist, he wouldn’t have been willing to give up either anyways, and even if he did give either one or both of them up he truly believed that it was his right to be king and his right to be in charge and above the law. I feel he would have taken the same paths that he did with Parliament and with the Royalists because that was who he was and what he believe in. This site is full of articles and histories, on Charles I and on their society as well. As I said this website is really interesting, they really hold King Charles high up. While looking through all the different tabs, I really could not find anything bad about Charles, not even one. Because even the best of people have at least something they did wrong. I feel that I might not know enough about Charles I in order to understand where they are coming from. I think it is important to hear both sides of the story to really look into something and be able to understand it.